3 ms·

If I were to export a single chip to Iran, I would be a legitimate target of NSA. When Huawei sold network monitoring equipment to Iran -- knowing full well tha

If I were to export a single chip to Iran, I would be a legitimate target of NSA. When Huawei sold network monitoring equipment to Iran -- knowing full well that equipment is used to target and kill people, and in contravention of US export laws -- they made themselves legitimate targets of the NSA.

Spearchucker 13y ago
Lets say you're exporting a single chip to the US. You know full well that your chip will end up in a drone. That drone then obliterates an innocent child in some godforsaken backwater in Africa or somewhere. Does that legitimize their making a target of you?
- eliteraspberrie 13y ago
  If exporting chips to the US were against Chinese laws, yes, of course.
  - insuffi 13y ago
    Your argument makes sense. However, let us take into account the fact that there are all kinds of laws passed[0] that frankly shouldn't. [0]Under the disguise of national security concerns.
pkinsky 13y ago
Does the same logic apply to companies dealing with Taiwan, in (probable) convention of Chinese law? Huawei has no responsibility to follow US export law.
- snowwrestler 13y ago
  Yes it does; China most definitely attempts to spy on foreign companies that do business in Taiwan.
sethrin 13y ago
The NSA's legitimate targets are those bearing arms against the United States, and foreign intelligence more broadly. If you were to export a single chip to Iran, you would be the legitimate target of the FBI, which is an internal law enforcement agency, and not a military intelligence agency. Internal law enforcement bodies are bound by laws and procedures, yet while rules of warfare exist, they are what one might term fairly permissive. Even more briefly, "War is Hell," and we do not bring Hell home. It is a universally applicable principle that the use of any military force against its own people is a treasonous offense; almost a tautology. More than this, it is sheer stupidity. Why should we seek to use the engines of war against the shores that bore them? No one will deny the legitimate use of military intelligence-gathering. May we all be eternally spared the brutality of conflict, but if it must be, let it be conducted with wisdom and swift sure purpose. I'm not particularly bothered by the US military investigating bellicose nations and/or nationals, but I'd prefer to avoid military operations in allied territory to whatever degree possible -- we should pretend to some degree of civilization. Using military forces against civilians is generally considered criminal, and using them against citizens -- why don't you come up with some descriptive adjectives?
Intermernet 13y ago
I would argue that there isn't really such a thing as a legitimate target of the NSA. From Wikipedia [1]: "Unlike the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), both of which specialize primarily in foreign human espionage, the NSA has no authority to conduct human-source intelligence gathering". This is a very dubious remit. I'd argue that, in the current digital climate, the recording of phone and internet traffic is the primary method of "human-source intelligence gathering". If so, the NSA is operating out of it's defined area of responsibility and has made itself illegitimate. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency

Spearchucker 13y ago

Lets say you're exporting a single chip to the US. You know full well that your chip will end up in a drone. That drone then obliterates an innocent child in some godforsaken backwater in Africa or somewhere. Does that legitimize their making a target of you?

eliteraspberrie 13y ago
If exporting chips to the US were against Chinese laws, yes, of course.
- insuffi 13y ago
  Your argument makes sense. However, let us take into account the fact that there are all kinds of laws passed[0] that frankly shouldn't. [0]Under the disguise of national security concerns.

pkinsky 13y ago

Does the same logic apply to companies dealing with Taiwan, in (probable) convention of Chinese law? Huawei has no responsibility to follow US export law.

snowwrestler 13y ago
Yes it does; China most definitely attempts to spy on foreign companies that do business in Taiwan.

sethrin 13y ago

The NSA's legitimate targets are those bearing arms against the United States, and foreign intelligence more broadly. If you were to export a single chip to Iran, you would be the legitimate target of the FBI, which is an internal law enforcement agency, and not a military intelligence agency. Internal law enforcement bodies are bound by laws and procedures, yet while rules of warfare exist, they are what one might term fairly permissive. Even more briefly, "War is Hell," and we do not bring Hell home. It is a universally applicable principle that the use of any military force against its own people is a treasonous offense; almost a tautology. More than this, it is sheer stupidity. Why should we seek to use the engines of war against the shores that bore them? No one will deny the legitimate use of military intelligence-gathering. May we all be eternally spared the brutality of conflict, but if it must be, let it be conducted with wisdom and swift sure purpose. I'm not particularly bothered by the US military investigating bellicose nations and/or nationals, but I'd prefer to avoid military operations in allied territory to whatever degree possible -- we should pretend to some degree of civilization. Using military forces against civilians is generally considered criminal, and using them against citizens -- why don't you come up with some descriptive adjectives?

Intermernet 13y ago

I would argue that there isn't really such a thing as a legitimate target of the NSA. From Wikipedia [1]: "Unlike the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), both of which specialize primarily in foreign human espionage, the NSA has no authority to conduct human-source intelligence gathering". This is a very dubious remit. I'd argue that, in the current digital climate, the recording of phone and internet traffic is the primary method of "human-source intelligence gathering". If so, the NSA is operating out of it's defined area of responsibility and has made itself illegitimate. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency